Agenda and minutes

Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method.  Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting.  Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred to the notice of filming at meetings and this information was noted.

The Planning Committee abides by the Council’s Planning Protocol 2017.  A factsheet covering some of the key points within the protocol as well as some of the context for Haringey’s planning process is provided alongside the agenda pack available to the public at each meeting as well as on the Haringey Planning Committee webpage.

The planning system manages the use and development of land and buildings.  The overall aim of the system is to ensure a balance between enabling development to take place and conserving and protecting the environment and local amenities.  Planning can also help tackle climate change and overall seeks to create better public places for people to live, work and play.  It is important that the public understand that the committee makes planning decisions in this context.  These decisions are rarely simple and often involve balancing competing priorities.  Councillors and officers have a duty to ensure that the public are consulted, involved and where possible, understand the decisions being made.

Neither the number of objectors or supporters nor the extent of their opposition or support are of themselves material planning considerations.

The Planning Committee is held as a meeting in public and not a public meeting.  The right to speak from the floor is agreed beforehand in consultation with officers and the Chair.  Any interruptions from the public may mean that the Chamber needs to be cleared.

The Chair referred to the planning protocol and this information was noted.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Luke Cawley-Harrison. Councillor Pippa Connor was present as substitute.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business. Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with at item 10 below.

There were no items of urgent business.

A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.

A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct

In relation to item 7, HGY/2022/0752 – Council Depot, Ashley Road, N17 9DP, Cllr Rice stated that he intended to take part in the discussion but did not intend to vote on the item. He noted that he did not have any pecuniary interests. Cllr Rice clarified that he would speak as a ward councillor in relation to the application. It was confirmed that he would not be taking part in the discussion or voting on this item and would leave the room after his submission, whilst the application was being discussed.

Cllr Rice enquired why the Committee was not considering the minutes of the last meeting. The Chair noted that the minutes would be circulated when they were available.

In accordance with the Sub Committee’s protocol for hearing representations; when the recommendation is to grant planning permission, two objectors may be given up to 6 minutes (divided between them) to make representations. Where the recommendation is to refuse planning permission, the applicant and supporters will be allowed to address the Committee. For items considered previously by the Committee and deferred, where the recommendation is to grant permission, one objector may be given up to 3 minutes to make representations.

The Chair referred to the note on planning applications and this information was noted.

Proposal: Full planning application for the erection of 272 homes including 50% socially rented homes extending 4-13 storeys, 174sqm of flexible Use Class E floorspace along with a new vehicular access to the site, car parking and two pedestrian north south routes. The proposal also includes both private and public hard and soft landscaping throughout the site.

Recommendation: GRANT

Cllr Rice moved to the public seating area.

The Committee considered an application for full planning permission for the erection of 272 homes including 50% socially rented homes extending 4-13 storeys, 174sqm of flexible Use Class E floorspace along with a new vehicular access to the site, car parking and two pedestrian north south routes. The proposal also includes both private and public hard and soft landscaping throughout the site.

Christopher Smith, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was noted that there was a proposed requirement for the applicant to undertake an archaeological investigation. The Head of Development Management explained that any findings would not necessarily stop a development but would require certain processes to be followed.

·         Some members of the Committee commented that some floors within the proposal would exceed the recommended number of homes per core set out in Standard 12 of the Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). The Principal Urban Design Officer highlighted that the report should say units per floor per core rather than units per core. It was explained that, although some floors slightly exceeded the guidance, the proposal would be well-lit and well-ventilated and would avoid having long corridors.

·         The Planning Officer stated that the proposed play space for under 5s was marginally below the play space estimate. However, it was explained that residents of the proposed development would be able to access ‘play on the way’ features located on key public routes in the area and these spaces would mean that the play space estimate would be exceeded.

·         Some members enquired why the scheme would have some visitor parking but would exclude residents from applying for parking permits. The Transport Planning Team Manager explained that the Council’s standard position was to seek car free developments where residents could not apply for parking permits. It was noted that visitor parking had less of a permanent impact and it was considered that this could be accommodated in the surrounding streets.

·         In relation to concerns about vehicular dominance caused by the proposal, the Transport Planning Team Manager noted that the applicant would be required to submit Vehicular Access Control Arrangements. It was added that the scheme was a limited car development and that the site would be monitored for a period of five years; this would be secured by legal agreement.

·         Some members noted that the Greater London Authority (GLA) had previously commented that they would not support the loss of a waste site in this area and it was enquired whether this had been resolved. The Planning Officer explained that there had been discussions with the GLA Waste Team and there was in principle agreement that the arguments in the report were accepted by the GLA. It was noted that the application would be considered by the GLA formally in their Stage 2 comments.

·         It was noted that legal requirements would normally be secured by section 106 legal agreements but it was enquired how this would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The following items are pre-application presentations to the Planning Sub-Committee and discussion of proposals.

Notwithstanding that this is a formal meeting of the Sub-Committee, no decision will be taken on the following items and any subsequent applications will be the subject of a report to a future meeting of the Sub-Committee in accordance with standard procedures.

The provisions of the Localism Act 2011 specifically provide that a Councillor should not be regarded as having a closed mind simply because they previously did or said something that, directly or indirectly, indicated what view they might take in relation to any particular matter.  Pre-application briefings provide the opportunity for Members to raise queries and identify any concerns about proposals.

The Members’ Code of Conduct and the Planning Protocol 2016 continue to apply for pre-application meeting proposals even though Members will not be exercising the statutory function of determining an application.  Members should nevertheless ensure that they are not seen to pre-determine or close their mind to any such proposal otherwise they will be precluded from participating in determining the application or leave any decision in which they have subsequently participated open to challenge.

The Chair referred to the note on pre-application briefings and this information was noted.

Proposal: Retention of existing Police Station building (Block A) with internal refurbishment, rear extensions and loft conversions to create  6 terrace houses and 4 flats. Erection of two buildings comprising of Block C along Glebe Road and Harold Road to create 8 flats and erection of Block B along Tottenham Lane and towards the rear of Tottenham Lane to create 7 flats and 4 mews houses including landscaping and other associated works.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the retention of existing Police Station building (Block A) with internal refurbishment, rear extensions and loft conversions to create 6 terrace houses and 4 flats. Erection of two buildings comprising of Block C along Glebe Road and Harold Road to create 8 flats and erection of Block B along Tottenham Lane and towards the rear of Tottenham Lane to create 7 flats and 4 mews houses including landscaping and other associated works.

The applicant team and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         The Committee noted that the police station was a community use building and that, under Council Policy DM49, there was a requirement to seek alternative community uses for the building, including through marketing; it was enquired whether this had been undertaken. The applicant team stated that the pre-application had outlined the change of use and had been supported and it was believed that no further marketing was required in relation to DM49. The applicant team explained that the police station was considered to be sui generis use rather than community use. The Head of Development Management noted that this would require confirmation.

·         In relation to the elevations and pitched roof, the applicant team explained that the application did not aim to create a pastiche or replicate existing buildings in the area. It was stated that the design was more contemporary and that the proposed undulations took inspiration from the local context.

·         Regarding resident concerns about daylight, the applicant team stated that there had been a daylight and sunlight assessment. It was noted that all Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines had been met and that there would be no infringements for overshadowing on neighbouring properties.

·         It was confirmed that the affordable housing provision, including type and tenure, was provisional. The current proposal was to have eight affordable units, subject to the conclusion of the viability assessment.

·         The applicant team noted that a transport assessment and parking stress survey had been conducted which found that there were sufficient parking spaces. It was clarified that only the 12 family sized units would have access to parking.

·         Some members of the Committee expressed concerns that waste would be collected from the roadside which would have a negative impact on the nearby junction. The applicant team stated that waste collection was currently from the roadside and it was proposed to maintain this. It was added that introducing waste collection from within the site would negatively impact the landscaping and greening of the site. It was added that the number of bin stores had been calculated in line with the Council’s requirements.

·         The applicant team clarified that some changes had been made to the design of the proposal in response to comments from the Quality Review Panel (QRP). It was noted that Block C now included different brick treatment, dormers, and low level planting in order to look more interesting.

·         In response to a question about conservation and resident views, the applicant team stated that a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To discuss items of urgent business presented at agenda item 8.

There were no items of urgent business.

To note the date of the next meeting as Thursday, 21 July 2022.

It was noted that the date of the next meeting was 21 July 2022.